Ah, yes, another tearing-down of an icon, which we must do periodically. Ho-farking-hum. It's always a shock to find out that one's gods are human. Rather like Obama in that debate. God must never be seen to stumble.

I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. And I say that because I absolutely think that Jefferson was an enormous douche. So I'm barely making a defense for him. But everyone seems to be leaving out one very important part of the article.

The reason he cannot be considered a hypocrite for his treatment of slaves is that he didn't see them as human. And that was quite in line with the thinking of the day. Now that 200 years have gone by, and views on such things have changed, it suddenly makes it look like he was a two-faced prick.

In other words, he wasn't a hypocrite, he was a very short-sighted person who refused to acknowledge that all men, including blacks, are created equal.

Chimperror2: Look up Godwin's law and the previous Hitler comparison and get back to us, newbie.

*sigh*

I know what godwins law is. I was talking about the second half of your comment "Jefferson was a dick. It's now enshrined forever." which is why I said " It's been pretty common knowledge that he was a racist slave owner. How is this "now enshrined forever"?"

rico567:Ah, yes, another tearing-down of an icon, which we must do periodically. Ho-farking-hum. It's always a shock to find out that one's gods are human. Rather like Obama in that debate. God must never be seen to stumble.

Yes. Very well said.

Liberals love viciously attacking America's Founding Fathers for nothing more than acting in accordance with the views of their time, which only by modern standards seem fatally inconsistent with their expressed ideals. But they expose their hypocrisy by voting for Obama, even though the man lost the first debate. It is totally self-contradictory to attack the Founding Fathers, only to turn around and vote Obama. Liberals are capable of finding fault only in the victims of their unrelenting hate.

log_jammin:Chimperror2: He didn't mind screwing them and having babies.

he sure did.

Chimperror2: What other non-humans did he have sex with?

as far as we know he didn't have sex with anything else he thought was another species.

anything else?

Even today, conservatives and liberals alike seem to have trouble with the concept that any member of H. sapiens is a person (though their trouble runs in different directions). Should it really come as a surprise that our forebears did as well, or are we calling out the splinter in one person's eye while ignoring the rafters in our own?

Imagine a future where there are no abortions because there are no unplanned pregnancies. Then go another 100 years from that. What will people of that time think when they look back at the abortions going on today? They may think us barbarians.Point is, you can't put today's morals on people from 200 years ago. You must look at them with the morals of their time in mind.

Perhaps everyone should read the entire book rather than judge the man based upon one critics take on a small part of his life. Jefferson was very conflicted about slavery but his views on slavery should be no means define the entire man that was Thomas Jefferson.Even the short little piece they did on Sunday Morning on CBS gave a better overall view on his take on slavery than this piece did.

MarkEC:Imagine a future where there are no abortions because there are no unplanned pregnancies. Then go another 100 years from that. What will people of that time think when they look back at the abortions going on today? They may think us barbarians.Point is, you can't put today's morals on people from 200 years ago. You must look at them with the morals of their time in mind.

But I'm not sure if that's the issue. Judging Jefferson because he owned slaves is not the argument. Rebranding slavery so that it was more profitable and more cruel while claiming slavery was disgusting, however, is an indicator that he was a complex man who often applied a different standard to his own actions.

Bontesla:MarkEC: Imagine a future where there are no abortions because there are no unplanned pregnancies. Then go another 100 years from that. What will people of that time think when they look back at the abortions going on today? They may think us barbarians.Point is, you can't put today's morals on people from 200 years ago. You must look at them with the morals of their time in mind.

But I'm not sure if that's the issue. Judging Jefferson because he owned slaves is not the argument. Rebranding slavery so that it was more profitable and more cruel while claiming slavery was disgusting, however, is an indicator that he was a complex man who often applied a different standard to his own actions.

How many people today espouse the pro-choice position while saying that they would never have an abortion themselves?

Oh good lord. This shiat again. Okay everybody, for the 14th million time: Jefferson, like just about everyone of the landed gentry of his day, owned slaves. Get the fark over it. All this "Jefferson was a monster" is pure fantasy. Why has this suddenly become so prevalent? Because he founded the Democratic Party. Get it?

Lt_Ryan:MagicMissile: All of the founding fathers were great Presidents who paved the foundation for the greatest nation the world has ever seen. (Yes we are better than you)

Its sad that we have lost our way do to a rapidly expanding ignorant population. The movie Idiocracy comes to mind.

That and politicians no longer work together and come to a compromise, rather both sides propose demands and publicly state that they are unwilling to waiver.

I watch Idiocracy every election night, it somehow seems appropriate.

/Camacho 2016

MagicMissile:All of the founding fathers were great Presidents who paved the foundation for the greatest nation the world has ever seen. (Yes we are better than you)

I really get sick of that logic. People were far more ignorant back then, but most of them weren't allowed to vote. The election between Adams and Jeffereson took 36 votes in the House to decide. Fistfights in Congress were common, and duels occurred as well. Adams jailed journalists who opposed him. If the report of the Battle of New Orleans had taken just a little bit longer to get to (what was left of) Washington, the country would have split in half.

The country under Washington actually worked, sort of. That's because Washington in effect had unlimited power. The country from 1796-1814 was a huge mess. The idea that people were enlightened and compromised and that's why things worked is horseshiat.

The main difference politically between then and now is that now most major issues are already settled, and politicians no longer farking kill each other.

Too bad for all the left wing cocksucking assholes that history so firmly supports Jefferson's point of view. Everywhere you look, from Oakland to Detroit to Washington to Joburg, Kenya and Rhodesia, you see the same failed governments and societies repeated over and over.

FTFA: Jefferson did worry about the future of slavery, but not out of moral qualms. After reading about the slave revolts in Haiti, Jefferson wrote to a friend that "if something is not done and soon done, we shall be the murderers of our own children." But he never said what that "something" should be.

So, Jefferson was looking for a solution to the slave problem? A ...final solution??

Chimperror2:durbnpoisn: I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. And I say that because I absolutely think that Jefferson was an enormous douche. So I'm barely making a defense for him. But everyone seems to be leaving out one very important part of the article.

The reason he cannot be considered a hypocrite for his treatment of slaves is that he didn't see them as human. And that was quite in line with the thinking of the day. Now that 200 years have gone by, and views on such things have changed, it suddenly makes it look like he was a two-faced prick.

In other words, he wasn't a hypocrite, he was a very short-sighted person who refused to acknowledge that all men, including blacks, are created equal.

He didn't mind screwing them and having babies. What other non-humans did he have sex with?

MayoBoy:Perhaps everyone should read the entire book rather than judge the man based upon one critics take on a small part of his life. Jefferson was very conflicted about slavery but his views on slavery should be no means define the entire man that was Thomas Jefferson.Even the short little piece they did on Sunday Morning on CBS gave a better overall view on his take on slavery than this piece did.

I think that, too, is far too generous. As a person, he was a Bastard. As a forefather, he was a great man.

He wrote that he was against slavery while revolutionizing it to make it more efficient and, often more cruel. This wasn't a reluctant slave owner caught in an era that didn't quite feel like home. He dwelled on how he could change the industry to maximize profits. A process which included finding the right number of breeding slaves to replace slaves who die.

I find it funny that the same people who biatch about the Old Testament "condoning" slavery are some of the same defending Jefferson's actions, when at that exact period of creation/existance, Jefferson could have done more about it. Especially since Jefferson wasnt a fan of any divine edicts of the Bible, as it were.

JackieRabbit:Oh good lord. This shiat again. Okay everybody, for the 14th million time: Jefferson, like just about everyone of the landed gentry of his day, owned slaves. Get the fark over it. All this "Jefferson was a monster" is pure fantasy. Why has this suddenly become so prevalent? Because he founded the Democratic Party. Get it?

.Things I've recently learned on Fark:

/All teachers are far right conservatives.//All of the media is run by far right conservatives.///There is a giant conspiracy by the media and the educational system to attack democrats.

MarkEC:Bontesla: MarkEC: Imagine a future where there are no abortions because there are no unplanned pregnancies. Then go another 100 years from that. What will people of that time think when they look back at the abortions going on today? They may think us barbarians.Point is, you can't put today's morals on people from 200 years ago. You must look at them with the morals of their time in mind.

But I'm not sure if that's the issue. Judging Jefferson because he owned slaves is not the argument. Rebranding slavery so that it was more profitable and more cruel while claiming slavery was disgusting, however, is an indicator that he was a complex man who often applied a different standard to his own actions.

How many people today espouse the pro-choice position while saying that they would never have an abortion themselves?

And I think those people are also bastards.

This has nothing to do with trying to apply current moral standard to a previous generation.

Ambivalence:GAT_00: Yeah, but reading the bio McCullough wrote about him, the two people who really stick out are Jefferson and Franklin, both of which he pretty much loathed, at least from the Revolution era.

Adams can shut his whore mouth! Franklin was unequivocally awesome.

The other founders were just pissed when Franklin would get them to flip their wigs and casually respond, 'You aggrieved brethren?'

ChuDogg:Chimperror2: durbnpoisn: I'm going to play Devil's Advocate here. And I say that because I absolutely think that Jefferson was an enormous douche. So I'm barely making a defense for him. But everyone seems to be leaving out one very important part of the article.

The reason he cannot be considered a hypocrite for his treatment of slaves is that he didn't see them as human. And that was quite in line with the thinking of the day. Now that 200 years have gone by, and views on such things have changed, it suddenly makes it look like he was a two-faced prick.

In other words, he wasn't a hypocrite, he was a very short-sighted person who refused to acknowledge that all men, including blacks, are created equal.

He didn't mind screwing them and having babies. What other non-humans did he have sex with?

Didnt the DNA test prove it was his uncle?

As much as I have read about it it seems pretty indicative that it was Jefferson and not any of his family members since he was at monticello during the est conception time while others were not. Whether his children were products of a real relationship or not IDK, but the practice of "growing slaves" by raping slaves was quite common in early america. Cheaper that way. So even if he was the one farking Sally Hemmings it doesnt make him amoral for the time.

Bontesla:MarkEC: Imagine a future where there are no abortions because there are no unplanned pregnancies. Then go another 100 years from that. What will people of that time think when they look back at the abortions going on today? They may think us barbarians.Point is, you can't put today's morals on people from 200 years ago. You must look at them with the morals of their time in mind.

But I'm not sure if that's the issue. Judging Jefferson because he owned slaves is not the argument. Rebranding slavery so that it was more profitable and more cruel while claiming slavery was disgusting, however, is an indicator that he was a complex man who often applied a different standard to his own actions.

When people IRL who aren't Founding Fathers do this sort of thing, we call them hypocrites. Just sayin'

what is this even supposed to mean? It's been pretty common knowledge that he was a racist slave owner. How is this "now enshrined forever"?

"You used Hitler in an argument against X. According to Godwin's law, you have lost. X is true, and it is now enshrined forever".

What X is is irrelevant.

Does this help?

Godwin's Law relates to how every single online historical (or not) discussion will eventually touch upon WWII and Hitler; when this happens people usually get pretty emotional, sometimes they suspend their rationality and civility, and all are left with is a flame war. Godwin's Law isn't a law of personal conduct, it's an observation of online human behavior. Think more of a natural law than a legal etc. one.

xanadian:FTFA: Jefferson did worry about the future of slavery, but not out of moral qualms. After reading about the slave revolts in Haiti, Jefferson wrote to a friend that "if something is not done and soon done, we shall be the murderers of our own children." But he never said what that "something" should be.

So, Jefferson was looking for a solution to the slave problem? A ...final solution??

Crotchrocket Slim:Bontesla: MarkEC: Imagine a future where there are no abortions because there are no unplanned pregnancies. Then go another 100 years from that. What will people of that time think when they look back at the abortions going on today? They may think us barbarians.Point is, you can't put today's morals on people from 200 years ago. You must look at them with the morals of their time in mind.

But I'm not sure if that's the issue. Judging Jefferson because he owned slaves is not the argument. Rebranding slavery so that it was more profitable and more cruel while claiming slavery was disgusting, however, is an indicator that he was a complex man who often applied a different standard to his own actions.

When people IRL who aren't Founding Fathers do this sort of thing, we call them hypocrites. Just sayin'

"If there was 'treason against the hopes of the world,' it was perpetrated by the founding generation, which failed to place the nation on the road to liberty for all. No one bore a greater responsibility for that failure than the master of Monticello."

The problem with putting the blame on Jefferson for not stopping slavery is that it was a volatile topic that would have torn the young nation apart. There would have been no United States of America if the country had outlawed slavery, because the economy of the southern colonies depended on slave labor. Practically everyone with political power in the south at the time owned slaves, and getting rid of slavery would have meant completely changing the economy.

czei:The problem with putting the blame on Jefferson for not stopping slavery is that it was a volatile topic that would have torn the young nation apart. There would have been no United States of America if the country had outlawed slavery, because the economy of the southern colonies depended on slave labor. Practically everyone with political power in the south at the time owned slaves, and getting rid of slavery would have meant completely changing the economy.

Doesn't matter, to most FARKers the US should have ended up like Haiti, and the fact that it didn't is one of history's greatest injustices.

/better to be king of hell than a mere president in heaven//even if you end up being a slave in hell, at least there's a chance of becoming a king who gets to force everyone else to follow rules while being able to ignore them yourself... there's no chance of that in any true democracy

"Political foes were often the victim of a vulgar joke perpetrated by Jefferson during legislative debate. During such debate, once recognized by the Chair, a speaker was free to wander about the legislative chamber, while other legislators were expected to remain seated. Jefferson, who ate a diet rich with beans, cheese and eggs, discovered that he could torment those who opposed his viewpoint by strategically passing gas, oftentimes mere inches away from the nostrals of his enemy. Jefferson jokingly referred to this tactic as the "Shenandoah Fog." - Page Smith, Jefferson: A Revealing Biography